This is great news, and I am happy for all the recruiters and teams who were responsible for all of the hard work getting this done. Of course the economy has helped too, but yet again, to get guys to sign up for a military service during wartime can be a tough sell.
On that note, I wonder if the security contracting industry would ever see a recruitment campaign, equal to that of today’s military? My industry has no problems in recruiting folks now, and if anything, the competition is so stiff that guys are turned away. And for war zone employment!
The other commentary I have on this, is that I have seen guys who could not get contracting gigs, go back to the military. Mostly because of money issues, or to obtain a clearance. The clearance is mandatory for jobs these days, and if you didn’t get one in the military or in a company within the last couple years, then guys are kind of screwed.
You don’t know how many readers I get, who are always asking me for job information, and how to get a clearance. I can point them in the right direction for jobs, but the clearance thing is a huge problem.
One suggestion I would have for the government, is to set up a third party accreditation service that can give guys a blessing for a clearance as well as the blessing for training and background (the whole Red Card concept). Then the companies could look at bringing in guys with these ‘interim’ style clearances, and not worry about cost or the investigation or the time waiting for all of this. They would just bring the contractor on, and sponsor his clearance without the wait.(like a day, or week at tops) Contractors should not have to wait for a year and half to get a clearance, and clearances should be something that guys can seek on their own if they want it.
As it stands now, the companies and the government is losing out on some squared away folks, all because folks do not have a clearance. I am talking about guys who have been working contracts that never required these clearances in the past. So if the companies are looking for some experienced folks, but having to turn away these guys because they do not have clearances, then what does that leave the company with? Are we hiring folks out there with little to no experience in the contracting industry, all because they have a clearance? Something to think about, and I think there is a better way.
Now back to recruiting. The other thing I wanted to touch on, is the running joke in the industry that everyone views their time in the military, like a four year degree. lol But seriously, when you are gunning for these six figure jobs in the defense industry, and the requirements are military service with a clearance, then you actually do think about the military in terms of a necessary education. I wonder how many folks have joined the military, with the idea that they would like to contract afterwards? It is probably a small number, but I do get younger guys asking me from time to time, what service and MOS to get into, in order to be marketable for contracting. Crazy huh?
It goes the other way too. I know guys that were in the military, started contracting when they got out, ran into road blocks with the clearance, and went back into the Reserves or National Guard to get a clearance and a more specialized job, and then got back into contracting later on. It is kind of like going back to school (the military) to get a Masters or Phd. in the Combat Arms, with a thesis written on contracting. lol
Even the duration of contracts are shrinking. The National Guard is like a year and half or two years now? There are some contracts in the private industry that are a year long–so both sides of the house are meeting in the middle these days (it seems). The military is trying to shorten deployments and contracts, because that is how you get guys to sign up.
The private industry has been losing guys who jump contract to companies with shorter deployment times too. Why?Because contractors have families, just like the military. Contractors also do not want to burn out, and for those of us that are serious about this business, pacing is everything. But to each their own, and everyone has their own limits and goals. That is the advantage of contracting, and guys like the choices, along with the money.
My advice to the military is to get deployments down to three months and a two to one ratio for time off. If you do three months in country, you do 6 months back home off. If you do 6 months in country, you do 12 months off at home. This seems to work well in my industry, and guys could work a long time for a company on a schedule like that. Families would be stoked too. Hell, if the military started doing that, you would see lines forming up at the recruiting offices, and probably an increase in re-enlistments. –Matt
——————————————————————
A Historic Success In Military Recruiting
In Midst of Downturn, All Targets Are Met
By Ann Scott TysonWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, October 14, 2009
For the first time in more than 35 years, the U.S. military has met all of its annual recruiting goals, as hundreds of thousands of young people have enlisted despite the near-certainty that they will go to war.
The Pentagon, which made the announcement Tuesday, said the economic downturn and rising joblessness, as well as bonuses and other factors, had led more qualified youths to enlist.
The military has not seen such across-the-board successes since the all-volunteer force was established in 1973, after Congress ended the draft following the Vietnam War. In recent years, the military has often fallen short of some of its recruiting targets. The Army, in particular, has struggled to fill its ranks, admitting more high school dropouts, overweight youths and even felons.
Yet during the current budget year, which ended Sept. 30, recruiters met their targets in both numbers and quality for all components of active-duty and reserve forces.
“We delivered beyond anything the framers of the all-volunteer force would have anticipated,” Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, said at a Pentagon news conference.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered by experts to be an unprecedented test of the volunteer military’s resilience. Its ability to bring fresh recruits into the force is critical not only to increasing the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps, but to ensuring that additional units are available to rotate into conflict zones. Some Army units sent overseas recently have been deployed at less than full strength.
As lengthy, multiple combat tours place U.S. forces under enormous stress, the willingness of young people to enlist has surprised even military leaders, experts said.
The military is suffering “strains that are tragic in personal lives, but institutionally the ground forces have held together and are not broken. They are even recovering a little bit as we speak,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Still, it is difficult to predict how much stress the volunteer military can take as it navigates uncharted waters, experts said.
“There is no way to tell at what point the Army will break in the sense of mass desertion, or people unwilling to stay in, or not meeting recruiting quotas,” O’Hanlon said.
Overall, the Defense Department brought in 168,900 active-duty troops, or 103 percent of the goal for the fiscal year, officials said. It reached 104 percent of the goal for recruitment of National Guard and reserve forces.
The quality of recruits also improved, with about 95 percent reporting that they had received high school diplomas; last year, 83 percent of the Army’s active-duty recruits had diplomas, short of the goal of 90 percent. The active-duty Army this year admitted only 1.5 percent of recruits who scored in the lowest acceptable category on the standard qualification test; in recent years, that figure had reached nearly 4 percent.
Carr said strong recruitment was driven by economic conditions that have made civilian jobs scarce, along with other factors such as pay increases and investment in recruiting budgets.
The recession “was a force,” Carr said, and, “given the unemployment that we had not directly forecast, allowed us to be for much of the year in a very favorable position.”
Historically, there has been a strong correlation between rising unemployment and increases in “high quality” enlistments, according to Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon’s director of accession policy.
Carr said the Defense Department spent about $10,000 on advertising, marketing, recruiters and other budget items per recruit, with the Army spending more than double that, at $22,000.
“The unemployment . . . left us with more dollars per recruit than proved to be minimally necessary,” he said.
Carr also credited hefty enlistment bonuses for the military’s success, saying 40 percent of recruits received an average bonus of $14,000, compared with $12,000 on average in 2008. The size of the bonus varied by service, with the Army, which has the toughest mission, offering more.
Maj. Gen. Donald Campbell, head of the Army’s recruiting command, said one factor in its success was putting a large number of recruiters on the streets.
“I think the most important thing that helps us with success, whether you’re talking money, resources, advertising, is having the right number of recruiters, soldiers on the ground,” he said.
In recent years, military officials cited the intensity of the fighting in Iraq as dampening interest in military service among 17-to-24-year-olds and, in particular, lessening the support of parents and other influential adults. But Pentagon officials said earlier this year that the declining violence in Iraq had made young people more willing to sign up.
Carr said that given the success this year, the Pentagon is cutting its $5 billion recruiting budget by 11 percent for next year.
Story here.